Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    • 3,696Posts
    • 4,551Thanks
    zeupater
    Solar ... In the news
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    Solar ... In the news 7th Jan 13 at 5:36 PM
    Hi All

    Thought it was about time we had a thread specifically to discuss relevant press articles relating to solar pv & thermal ..... so here goes ...

    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-01-2013 at 5:48 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Page 95
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 31st Aug 17, 11:52 PM
    • 3,696 Posts
    • 4,551 Thanks
    zeupater
    Hi All

    Well, for a small & totally random news article it certainly covers a lot ..

    Firstly, something which normally sets the dogs barking ... but this time it's a pretty big dog doing it ...
    This week, Duke Energy Florida announced that it will terminate all plans to build its Levy Nuclear Project.

    And as part of a deal with the Florida Public Service Commission, the company will instead invest $6 billion in solar energy, smart meters, and grid modernization as well as electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and a battery storage pilot program.
    ... Whoops!, apple cart & all that ...

    .. so whilst talking about Apple carts, I can't help but remember some heated conversations a few years ago comparing the massive generation capacity of ..(, don't mention the 'N' word).. against solar potential .. so, with massive wooden spoon in hand and a glint of mischief in the eye ...
    Duke’s move reflects global trends that see surging growth for solar power as prices plummet, while increasingly uncompetitive nuclear power stagnates.
    No, it doesn't stop there either ...
    ,,, by year’s end “solar PV could rival global nuclear capacity,” and by 2022, it could double current nuke capacity ...
    ... yes, load factors apply, but it does describe an incredible rate of change ....

    Ah, Almost forgot, a snippet to keep the 'industrial & commercial' roof proponents happy ...
    ... A Brooklyn Navy Yard rooftop covered with solar panels, February 14. State officials said investments in renewable projects like this one will help replace the power lost with closure of Indian Point nuclear plant ...
    Note that the closing n.. plant referenced is a different one though .... anyway, back to the dog then, 'Woof Woof' must now translate to ..
    ... Meanwhile, new U.S. nuclear builds have stalled because the industry is so uneconomic that half of the country’s existing nuclear power plants are losing money...
    I suppose it could actually be classified as being a totally biassed assessment .... but oddly enough ...
    ... Duke’s deal will add 700 megawatts (MW) of solar energy ...
    ... it's sourced from the nuclear generation company's own press releases ...
    <Link : Source Article>
    <Link : Press Release>

    .. Stop that now! ... or the dogs'll never be

    Well, it is nearly Friday & by the looks of things Mart would still be typing this on Monday ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 01-09-2017 at 12:06 AM. Reason: Display Format
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 1st Sep 17, 4:27 PM
    • 5,769 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    and to stick tghe boot in, solar is beating the n word today, despite new build n being 5 to 10yrs away and costs can only fall from falling cost per kwp, raised efficiency, removal of mip, and life expectancies proving to be greater than expected, so capex costs can be diluted further.

    pv the little engimne that could .....

    ..... spell better than me.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • gefnew
    • By gefnew 2nd Sep 17, 9:55 AM
    • 63 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    gefnew
    This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
    regards
    gefnew
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 2nd Sep 17, 10:57 AM
    • 5,769 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
    regards
    gefnew
    Originally posted by gefnew
    savings sound a tad high even for residents in all day, but also can't be true because our reasident self declared expert has told us that pv doesn't benefit the poor and people l.ike this, only really rich people.

    still lowered bills from solar panels will help offset the subsidies for 'n' we'll be pying till 2065ish
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 2nd Sep 17, 11:36 AM
    • 5,769 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    this has caught me by surprise, last i heard solar would be single largest energy source at abut 30pc, roughly 20pc pv and 10pc csp.

    but now 'they' arev trebling the pv estimates up to about 50pc. wow


    Global solar potential is highly underestimated, study shows

    The authors of the report claim that the share of PV by 2050 could be three times as large as previously assumed. According to the article published in the magazine “Nature Energy”, the share of solar energy could be between 30% and 50% worldwide, and not as current estimate of between 5% and 17%.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 3rd Sep 17, 12:24 AM
    • 19,209 Posts
    • 88,139 Thanks
    michaels
    This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
    regards
    gefnew
    Originally posted by gefnew
    Are the suppliers getting fit plus price per unit for deemed export or selling to the grid at whatever they can negotiate for the power generated?
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 3rd Sep 17, 5:58 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    Well, for a small & totally random news article it certainly covers a lot ..

    Firstly, something which normally sets the dogs barking ... but this time it's a pretty big dog doing it ...“
    This week, Duke Energy Florida announced that it will terminate all plans to build its Levy Nuclear Project.
    And as part of a deal with the Florida Public Service Commission, the company will instead invest $6 billion in solar energy, smart meters, and grid modernization as well as electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and a battery storage pilot program.
    ”... Whoops!, apple cart & all that ...

    .. so whilst talking about Apple carts, I can't help but remember some heated conversations a few years ago comparing the massive generation capacity of ..(, don't mention the 'N' word).. against solar potential .. so, with massive wooden spoon in hand and a glint of mischief in the eye ...
    You appear to be implying that solar is a replacement for nuclear when the press report that the reason that this plant has been cancelled is because of the cheapness of American fracked gas.
    It may not have been your intention, but may I infer from this that you support fracked gas as a mechanism of displacing nuclear?

    We have an issue in Germany where a large number of people wearing the coats of environmentalists promoted coal instead of nuclear power -and got what they wanted. We now have several coal stations open since we decided to phase out nuclear, lots of renewables but ultimately the same emissions per MWh.
    Yes, the Solar sector may benefit, especially in green washing by big corporates, (at least where it is sunny throughout all seasons) but it doesn't really help the environment.
    • gefnew
    • By gefnew 3rd Sep 17, 6:24 PM
    • 63 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    gefnew
    Hi Michaels
    Tried a bit of searching the web but to no avail on the terms they have,
    maybe just current fit for 20 years ? who knows, do the maths equate for a roi maybe?
    regards
    gefnew
    • ed110220
    • By ed110220 3rd Sep 17, 7:37 PM
    • 1,050 Posts
    • 541 Thanks
    ed110220
    You appear to be implying that solar is a replacement for nuclear when the press report that the reason that this plant has been cancelled is because of the cheapness of American fracked gas.
    It may not have been your intention, but may I infer from this that you support fracked gas as a mechanism of displacing nuclear?

    We have an issue in Germany where a large number of people wearing the coats of environmentalists promoted coal instead of nuclear power -and got what they wanted. We now have several coal stations open since we decided to phase out nuclear, lots of renewables but ultimately the same emissions per MWh.
    Yes, the Solar sector may benefit, especially in green washing by big corporates, (at least where it is sunny throughout all seasons) but it doesn't really help the environment.
    Originally posted by Nicolai Grenovski
    That's a little simplistic.

    From 2015 to 2016 the USA produced 46.7 TWh more electricity from natural gas, 8.15 TWh more from nuclear, 16.75 TWh more from hydro, 11.86 TWh more from solar, 36.15 TWh more from wind. So though natural gas was the largest increase, it wasn't overwhelmingly so and was smaller than the increase in "new" renewables (wind plus solar). Nuclear added less than either solar or wind and produced 1.67 TWh less in 2016 than its peak in 2010.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 3rd Sep 17, 9:26 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    That's a little simplistic.

    From 2015 to 2016 the USA produced 46.7 TWh more electricity from natural gas, 8.15 TWh more from nuclear, 16.75 TWh more from hydro, 11.86 TWh more from solar, 36.15 TWh more from wind. So though natural gas was the largest increase, it wasn't overwhelmingly so and was smaller than the increase in "new" renewables (wind plus solar).
    That's not the point - the point is the reason nuclear plant was cancelled is because the cost of electricity from cheap, fracked gas is significantly lower.

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

    Solar should reach parity with gas, but the cost to the consumer is higher because of the external systems to make it despatchable (counter intermittency with storage, grid interconnectivity etc).

    So gas is the supply of choice when compared to clean nuclear.
    Better than coal, but without CCS not by all that much.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 3rd Sep 17, 9:40 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    "(Reuters) - Duke Energy Corp said on Thursday it will not proceed with a $24 billion nuclear power project in central Florida because of licensing delays and doubts about cost recovery, but may use the site for nuclear power generation in the future.

    The announcement was the latest blow to nuclear power investment in the Sunshine State and reflected the boom in natural gas development nationwide.

    Although it is pulling the plug on plans to build a nuclear plant in Florida’s Levy County, the company said it continues to regard the Gulf Coast site as a “viable option for future nuclear generation.”

    “We continue to believe that a balanced energy portfolio, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and state-of-the-art cleaner power plants are critical to securing Florida’s energy future,” Alex Glenn, president of Duke Energy’s utility operations in the state, said in a statement."
    http://www.reuters.com/article/utilities-duke-levy/duke-energy-shelves-major-nuclear-project-in-florida-idUSL1N0G227O20130802
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 4th Sep 17, 8:39 AM
    • 5,769 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    oldish article but quite interesting looking at the options availablev to the uk, especially now that off-shore wind is expected to join on-shore wind and pv, by being cheaper than nuclear.

    quite remarkable that uk pv is heading for half the price of nuclear already, perhaps 50pounds/mwh, and of course already vastly cheaper in the us at around 30dollars/mwh.

    then take inot account the very low intermittency costs of uk pv at less than 2pounds/mwh, with potential for a minus figure of around 4pounds wirth the rollout of storage.

    New nuclear is faltering, but could renewables ride to the rescue?

    Consequently, the crucial question now for the government is where is Plan B? How do we ensure carbon targets are met even if Hinkley Point and the nuclear projects that were meant to follow it falter?

    The answer, thankfully, is staring the government in the face.

    There was a different sort of surprise earlier this year, an extremely welcome one. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) quietly confirmed that it expects renewable power deployment to be significantly higher than previously thought beyond 2020, primarily due to the plummeting cost and surging popularity of solar power and storage technologies.

    BEIS' projections now expect cumulative new build renewables capacity from 2016 to 2035 to reach 45GW, marking a sharp increase in the 2015 projection for 33GW of new capacity. The energy supply gap that would be created by Hinkley Point delays is already narrower than feared just a few months ago.

    Better still, another happy surprise could come later this autumn with the results of the government's latest clean power contract auction for offshore wind projects. The rumour is the bids will be extremely competitive, promising to deliver offshore wind at a price well below the guaranteed rates being offered to Hinkley Point. The government should be able to purchase a lot more clean power capacity than expected for the same outlay, narrowing any Hinkley-related supply gap still further.
    Such an encouraging outcome would still come with some sizeable challenges in tow, however. The temptation to take advantage of increasingly cost competitive offshore wind should not be used as an excuse to curb overall support for clean energy, nor as a justification for continuing to deny onshore wind, solar, marine energy, and even small modular reactor and carbon capture technologies a viable route to market. If it is foolhardy to put too many eggs in the nuclear basket it is equally risky to make the same mistake with offshore wind.

    In addition, increased reliance on renewables would inevitably demand accompanying investment in the smart grids and energy storage systems, to ensure a renewables-heavy grid remains stable.

    In another welcome coincidence, this is precisely the ground the government's Clean Growth Plan should cover. Climate Minister Claire Perry's decision to strengthen the strategy over the summer suddenly looks prescient; she could do with the flexibility a more ambitious plan would offer in the event the Hinkley project delays start to make Southern Trains look like an exemplar of reliability.
    The paradox of Hinkley Point remains that the UK should work hard to deliver the project, while simultaneously working to prove that emerging clean technologies mean it was never required. And that somewhat bizarre outcome shouldn't surprise anyone.
    it's quite remarkable how quickly nuclear has gone from being 'the' low carbon solution, to being the 'last' low carbon option on the list, but you can't use ideology to argue against economics, no matter how hard, and fast you spin.

    [edit - mwh on this occasion means mega watt hour. m.]
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 04-09-2017 at 8:41 AM. Reason: Added an edit.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 4th Sep 17, 10:41 AM
    • 3,696 Posts
    • 4,551 Thanks
    zeupater
    ... it's quite remarkable how quickly nuclear has gone from being 'the' low carbon solution, to being the 'last' low carbon option on the list, but you can't use ideology to argue against economics, no matter how hard, and fast you spin ...
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    .. I suppose that you could translate that to a simpler and more readily usable form ... 'It's the economy, stupid' ...

    The really odd thing I continually see in such exchanges is the pattern of addressing the issue from the position of large business interests and how technology changes effect energy input pricing ... obviously this is important, however, to the consumer it's simply a case of the price they pay for the energy they use, not the cost to the suppliers ...

    Of course, the ultimate test of the legacy energy industry is their continued willingness to place self-interest before that of the customer. Obviously, a position of maintaining higher than necessary consumer pricing in order to protect investment in a centralised generation strategy which is only in the financial grasp of a limited number of players initially looks to be an excellent self-interest strategy, although extremely short term and eventually self defeating. The ultimate outcome of such short-sightedness can be no more than to further accelerate the development of domestic scale microgeneration & storage technologies ... and of course, microgrid communities with their own generation & storage capacity.

    Of course, the idea of UK households going off-grid is a little daunting to most at the moment, however, to our household with our low level of energy consumption, it's not only a possibility, but unless the industry stop wasting our money and then charging for their ineptness, it's probably just a matter of time.

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • michaels
    • By michaels 4th Sep 17, 11:52 AM
    • 19,209 Posts
    • 88,139 Thanks
    michaels

    then take inot account the very low intermittency costs of uk pv at less than 2pounds/mwh, with potential for a minus figure of around 4pounds wirth the rollout of storage.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'
    Cool heads and compromise
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 4th Sep 17, 12:48 PM
    • 3,696 Posts
    • 4,551 Thanks
    zeupater
    I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'
    Originally posted by michaels
    Hi

    Totally understood here .... PV+solar thermal+heatpump+biomass+battery storage+more PV introduces the idea of eventual off-grid ...

    Then again, shared storage in a community (eg village) stirs thoughts of microgrids with backup provided through to direct community energy purchases through brokerage schemes ...

    As prices fall, storage will certainly prove to be a disruptive element for what is currently a heavily protective energy generation & supply sector .... I can certainly see possibilities for a flattening of the vertically integrated business models in the sector, possibly even going further & decoupling of supply and demand at national grid level ... paying the DNO directly for connectivity and then striking a supply contract with a combination of generators/suppliers, including the next door neighbour, the Jones' across the road, Bob the farmer down the lane with his turbine and still having access to external supply on a direct contract or spot purchase basis - with not a sight of any of the current 'big 6' in their current form? ... what an interesting time we're entering! ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 4th Sep 17, 1:06 PM
    • 5,769 Posts
    • 9,816 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'
    Originally posted by michaels
    yep, this is what i usually refer to as judging a hammer on it's ability to saw wood.

    most discussions on storage with the silly people will raise the question of inter-seasonal storage, when all we need to achieve is short term balancing.

    when asked about storing pv for the winter i typically point to wind and hydro and suggest we already have, and vice versa too.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • gefnew
    • By gefnew 4th Sep 17, 8:48 PM
    • 63 Posts
    • 71 Thanks
    gefnew
    Hi All
    The problem is the vested interests of each indidual party, and not a common goal where we all benifit from joined up thinking and working together to make things happen.
    not one war against another war but all coming together with aim of making it work.
    this will go on for a long time until the penny will drop.
    regards
    gefnew
    • NigeWick
    • By NigeWick 5th Sep 17, 9:47 AM
    • 2,696 Posts
    • 1,004 Thanks
    NigeWick
    I am hoping that Tony Seba's latest predictions are accurate. In his latest youtube offering he believes personal/local solar with battery backup will be cheaper than any nuclear, diesel, coal or gas electricity generation per kWh in about three years.
    The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
    Oliver Wendell Holmes
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 12:58 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    .. so whilst talking about Apple carts, I can't help but remember some heated conversations a few years ago comparing the massive generation capacity of ..(, don't mention the 'N' word).. against solar potential
    As a mechanism of preventing clean safe nuclear to help address global warming, solar is a useful albeit massively over used tool to the uninformed and, dare I say, the fossil fuel lobby, because certainly in the higher latitudes, solar without nuclear would be an effective fossil fuel supply.

    It is the "I" word that you should be addressing.
    I for insolation, intermittent and interseasonal.
    • Nicolai Grenovski
    • By Nicolai Grenovski 6th Sep 17, 1:16 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Nicolai Grenovski
    quite remarkable that uk pv is heading for half the price of nuclear already, perhaps 50pounds/mwh, and of course already vastly cheaper in the us at around 30dollars/mwh.
    Hi Martyn - I don't know where you got the £50/MWh for solar from - UK bricing is not the same as elsewhere because it includes transmission costs (per/MWh) which we do not include in European or LCOE pricing.

    The latest projections (last November) I can find for the UK are that by 2030 (priced to a 2012 benchmark for their 'Contract for Difference' contract comparisons.) is:

    By 2030
    Onshore wind: £45-72/MWh
    Solar £59-73/MWh
    Offshore wind £85-109/MWh
    Nuclear £69-99/MWh.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566567/BEIS_Electricity_Generation_Cost_Report.pdf

    There will no doubt be some movement in the ranges here but I don't see how that could be by the margins you suggest - especially as the pricing does not include the extras required to address problems with non dispatchable (intermittent) supplies.
    We can use gas, but that defeats the object aas it massively devalues the investment in clean renewables.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

325Posts Today

3,056Users online

Martin's Twitter